"But what we want to say right now is that that meaning was there from the beginning. It was inherent in the Gospel. It may have been implicit and not made explicit. It may have been somehow in nuche, kind of like in an acorn, so to speak, that has to grow into a mighty oak as it spreads its branches and begins to develop itself. But the development is only articulation, formulation, definition and explanation. It is not new doctrine. There is no new Christian doctrine after the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of Christ with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. There is no new doctrine. But there are new doctrinal formulations. " -Fr. Hopko

The criticism I have heard before is that, since "transubstantiation" is rooted in philosophical lingo rather than being strictly patristic, it should not be used to describe the Holy Eucharist.

Fwiw...

"At the same time, the Latins interpret the Sacraments in a legal and philosophical way. Hence, in the Eucharist, using the right material things (bread and wine) and pronouncing the correct formula, changes their substance (transubstantiation) into the Body and Blood of Christ. The visible elements or this and all Sacraments are merely "signs" of the presence of God. The Orthodox call the Eucharist "the mystical Supper." What the priest and the faithful consume is mysteriously the Body and Blood of Christ. We receive Him under the forms of bread and wine, because it would be wholly repugnant to eat "real" human flesh and drink "real" human blood." - Source

Please forgive me for disagreeing, at the very least with how this is worded. We pray at the consecration "That this bread may become the precious Body of Thy Christ... And that which is in this cup may become the precious blood of Thy Christ... Making the change by Thy Holy Spirit". These words are well articulated and pretty straight to the point. There is a difference between "real" and "literal". We eat the "real" physical Flesh and Blood of Christ (we receive everything according to the whole of who Christ is), but not in a "literal" (here's a piece of rib meat, etc) way.

Fwiw, I don't necessarily agree with them, I was just giving an example of why some don't like the term. If I recall, Pat. Dositheus used the term transubstantiation multiple times in his Orthodox confession, and then said something like: "but we don't mean anything exact by using this word, but acknowledge that what happens is a mystery" (paraphrasing). That sounds fine to me.

"But what we want to say right now is that that meaning was there from the beginning. It was inherent in the Gospel. It may have been implicit and not made explicit. It may have been somehow in nuche, kind of like in an acorn, so to speak, that has to grow into a mighty oak as it spreads its branches and begins to develop itself. But the development is only articulation, formulation, definition and explanation. It is not new doctrine. There is no new Christian doctrine after the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of Christ with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. There is no new doctrine. But there are new doctrinal formulations. " -Fr. Hopko

But we would also argue that some of your "developed doctrines" were not there from the beginning. The schism itself was based on the Latin Church running with an already developed concept and turning it into something much beyond what it was ever meant to be (Papal Primacy and the privilage of advising the other Churches to Papal Supremacy and the absolute right of interfering in the affairs of other Churches).

"But what we want to say right now is that that meaning was there from the beginning. It was inherent in the Gospel. It may have been implicit and not made explicit. It may have been somehow in nuche, kind of like in an acorn, so to speak, that has to grow into a mighty oak as it spreads its branches and begins to develop itself. But the development is only articulation, formulation, definition and explanation. It is not new doctrine. There is no new Christian doctrine after the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of Christ with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. There is no new doctrine. But there are new doctrinal formulations. " -Fr. Hopko

But we would also argue that some of your "developed doctrines" were not there from the beginning.

I believe that's what militantsparrow is saying: we (Catholics and Orthodox) agree about the principles of doctrinal development, but you (Orthodox) claim that we (Catholics) haven't followed those principles.

Fwiw, I don't necessarily agree with them, I was just giving an example of why some don't like the term. If I recall, Pat. Dositheus used the term transubstantiation multiple times in his Orthodox confession, and then said something like: "but we don't mean anything exact by using this word, but acknowledge that what happens is a mystery" (paraphrasing). That sounds fine to me.

I think it's cool that you guys use the term sometimes, although I wouldn't consider your eucharistic theology any less orthodox if you didn't use it since, in the West, it was only developed later and only popularized once competing heretical eucharistic theologies started popping up. Though we use specific terminology for what happens at the Lord's table, we still acknowledge it is shrouded in mystery. In our Liturgy the Priest says "let us proclaim the mystery of faith" because that is exactly what the Eucharist is.

"But what we want to say right now is that that meaning was there from the beginning. It was inherent in the Gospel. It may have been implicit and not made explicit. It may have been somehow in nuche, kind of like in an acorn, so to speak, that has to grow into a mighty oak as it spreads its branches and begins to develop itself. But the development is only articulation, formulation, definition and explanation. It is not new doctrine. There is no new Christian doctrine after the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of Christ with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. There is no new doctrine. But there are new doctrinal formulations. " -Fr. Hopko

But we would also argue that some of your "developed doctrines" were not there from the beginning.

I believe that's what militantsparrow is saying: we (Catholics and Orthodox) agree about the principles of doctrinal development, but you (Orthodox) claim that we (Catholics) haven't followed those principles.

I find it puzzling why the only two real known "ex cathedra" statements both came after the definition claiming the Pope always had that authority, and were not based in any real controversy that required a formal definition.

What's more puzzling are the hordes of people who accept the statistic "2 ex cathedra statements" without thought or question.

BTW, not to split hairs but Vatican I was in 1870, hence after the 1854 definition on the Immaculate Conception.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

What debate? Serious question, not a challenge.

Well, the debate over whether Mary bore God or a man in her womb was at Ephesus. You might indeed have a point about the Assumption. Was there ever a debate or was it impossed unilaterally from the top (another distinction from the Orthodox development of doctrine)?

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

What debate? Serious question, not a challenge.

Well, the debate over whether Mary bore God or a man in her womb was at Ephesus. You might indeed have a point about the Assumption. Was there ever a debate or was it impossed unilaterally from the top (another distinction from the Orthodox development of doctrine)?

That clarification is fine...thank you. Best to pay attention to Schultz for the moment. I don't want to distract you more than this.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

I'm not sure which objection I have to take up with the Orthodox Church as well. We believe Mary had a bodily death.

As I said, Munificentissimus Deus is rather agnostic regarding her death. A quick look and I see one reference to the ancient celebration of the dormition but that is it.

However as I stated in my original post, the big issue I brought forward was its condemnation of those who don't believe in it.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

I'm not sure which objection I have to take up with the Orthodox Church as well. We believe Mary had a bodily death.

As I said, Munificentissimus Deus is rather agnostic regarding her death. A quick look and I see one reference to the ancient celebration of the dormition but that is it.

However as I stated in my original post, the big issue I brought forward was its condemnation of those who don't believe in it.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

It really is not agnostic. I will step in to say that much at least. The constitution spends paragraphs talking about the long tradition of the story of her death, and the actual definition talks about her coming to the conclusion of her natural life...which is death for us. So those who say that it is "iffy" are talking through their hats...actually and truly.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

I am hopeless. So sorry, but the doctrine of the Mother of God is intimately tied to Christ at every moment. I can say more about that later. But the real mistake you make here is thinking that the reason something is dogmatically defined is so as to make it necessary for the faith. That is not true. The definition points to the core truth that must be believed, but the teaching...ALL doctrine...must be given the assent of faith. Does that mean you have to understand it or believe it in such a way that all of your doubts are relieved...NO!!...That is not what it means.

The assent of faith says that you will TRUST that the Church will not teach falsely...and that you are willing to do your best, if it takes a lifetime and beyond, to see how what the Church teaches can possibly be true.

NOBODY...understands the mystery of creation and salvation....NOBODY

And anyone who tells you that they do is full of prelest. You may grasp a small bit of this or that but the great bulk of what the Church teaches as the truths of revelation we MUST take on faith because there's no way our small minds can grasp it all. Even the greatest of saints and fathers and doctors of the Church don't pretend to know it all...quite the contrary.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

I'm not sure which objection I have to take up with the Orthodox Church as well. We believe Mary had a bodily death.

As I said, Munificentissimus Deus is rather agnostic regarding her death. A quick look and I see one reference to the ancient celebration of the dormition but that is it.

However as I stated in my original post, the big issue I brought forward was its condemnation of those who don't believe in it.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

Lex orendi, lex credendi.

If you go to the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos and say your, "Amen," you are, de facto, saying that what the feast celebrates is doctrinal. There is no ifs, and, or buts. There is nothing in Munificentissimus Deus that is not in the stichera of the Feast of the Dormition. Therefore, to say that one does not believe in what is proclaimed during the Feast of the Dormition is tantamount to putting one's salvation in jeopardy, for you are then setting yourself up as judge of the Church.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 07:15:05 PM by Schultz »

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

I'm not sure which objection I have to take up with the Orthodox Church as well. We believe Mary had a bodily death.

As I said, Munificentissimus Deus is rather agnostic regarding her death. A quick look and I see one reference to the ancient celebration of the dormition but that is it.

However as I stated in my original post, the big issue I brought forward was its condemnation of those who don't believe in it.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

Lex orendi, lex credendi.

If you go to the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos and say your, "Amen," you are, de facto, saying that what the feast celebrates is doctrinal. There is no ifs, and, or buts. There is nothing in Munificentissimus Deus that is not in the stichera of the Feast of the Dormition. Therefore, to say that one does not believe in what is proclaimed during the Feast of the Dormition is tantamount to putting one's salvation in jeopardy, for you are then setting yourself up as judge of the Church.

You know, Schultz, I think that if we could ever manage to get on the same calendar page with our feasts, it would eliminate a great deal of the noise between us...well...That's just a wish and a prayer.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

I'm not sure which objection I have to take up with the Orthodox Church as well. We believe Mary had a bodily death.

As I said, Munificentissimus Deus is rather agnostic regarding her death. A quick look and I see one reference to the ancient celebration of the dormition but that is it.

However as I stated in my original post, the big issue I brought forward was its condemnation of those who don't believe in it.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

It really is not agnostic. I will step in to say that much at least. The constitution spends paragraphs talking about the long tradition of the story of her death, and the actual definition talks about her coming to the conclusion of her natural life...which is death for us. So those who say that it is "iffy" are talking through their hats...actually and truly.

M.

Mary is right. I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned. Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.

In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

I'm not sure which objection I have to take up with the Orthodox Church as well. We believe Mary had a bodily death.

As I said, Munificentissimus Deus is rather agnostic regarding her death. A quick look and I see one reference to the ancient celebration of the dormition but that is it.

However as I stated in my original post, the big issue I brought forward was its condemnation of those who don't believe in it.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

It really is not agnostic. I will step in to say that much at least. The constitution spends paragraphs talking about the long tradition of the story of her death, and the actual definition talks about her coming to the conclusion of her natural life...which is death for us. So those who say that it is "iffy" are talking through their hats...actually and truly.

M.

As I said, the more recent readthrough I did was a quick look, and as I said I found only one reference to celebration of the Feast of the Dormition. If you can refer me to the sections that actually talk about her death, that would be great. My feeling that it is agnostic toward her death goes back to when I read it in the past. Perhaps you can point out what I missed.

It's hard to see how her death can be disputed by Roman Catholics considering the words of Pope Pius XII in the very document by which he dogmatically defined the Assumption. Ther Pope says, at least five times, that the Mother of God DIED. Catholics can wriggle out of this and say the Pope has no idea what he is talking about. They will claim that only the very small paragraph where the Pope defines the Assumption is binding on them. As for the rest of the infallible document it is erroneous, the Pope is wrong. I personally find it hard to belioeve that any Catholic could claim that the Spirit protected the Pope from error over one small paragraph and yet allowed him to teach erroneously five times in the same magisterial document!!

It would, btw, be quite impossible for Eastern Catholics not to believe that the Mother of God died without doing an act of violence to their own sacred Tradition. The iconography, the hymnography and the oral Tradition all teach that she did in fact die.

People like to say that the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" by which Pope Pius XII established the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 makes no mention of whether Mary died or did not die.

This is inaccurate. One only has to read the document to see that the Pope teaches that she died. For example, he says:

"Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."

and

"As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."

and

"They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt.."

and

"she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb.."

and

"What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"

These quotes from the papal document defining the Assumption are proof that the Pope taught that Mary died and was buried in a tomb and from there she was resurrected by her Son.

So there we are.... There is the "magisterial document" we are asking for.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

I'm not sure which objection I have to take up with the Orthodox Church as well. We believe Mary had a bodily death.

As I said, Munificentissimus Deus is rather agnostic regarding her death. A quick look and I see one reference to the ancient celebration of the dormition but that is it.

However as I stated in my original post, the big issue I brought forward was its condemnation of those who don't believe in it.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

It really is not agnostic. I will step in to say that much at least. The constitution spends paragraphs talking about the long tradition of the story of her death, and the actual definition talks about her coming to the conclusion of her natural life...which is death for us. So those who say that it is "iffy" are talking through their hats...actually and truly.

M.

Mary is right. I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned. Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.

In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.

You argue like all good dissenting Catholics, trying to rank the truth in some way.

Any teaching that is part of the deposit of faith taught by the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter, is to be granted the assent of faith.

The rest is a matter of the assent of the intellect which is not nearly so important to one's salvation or the truth of one's faith.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

I am hopeless. So sorry, but the doctrine of the Mother of God is intimately tied to Christ at every moment. I can say more about that later. But the real mistake you make here is thinking that the reason something is dogmatically defined is so as to make it necessary for the faith. That is not true. The definition points to the core truth that must be believed, but the teaching...ALL doctrine...must be given the assent of faith. Does that mean you have to understand it or believe it in such a way that all of your doubts are relieved...NO!!...That is not what it means.

The assent of faith says that you will TRUST that the Church will not teach falsely...and that you are willing to do your best, if it takes a lifetime and beyond, to see how what the Church teaches can possibly be true.

NOBODY...understands the mystery of creation and salvation....NOBODY

And anyone who tells you that they do is full of prelest. You may grasp a small bit of this or that but the great bulk of what the Church teaches as the truths of revelation we MUST take on faith because there's no way our small minds can grasp it all. Even the greatest of saints and fathers and doctors of the Church don't pretend to know it all...quite the contrary.

M.

The theotokos is not tied to Christ at every moment in that one belief of her reflects on Christ. That is a cop out to escape showing how the Assumption is a reflection on Christ rather than just Mary (indeed, by that argument what Mary ate on the 732nd Thursday after Christ was born reflects on Christ and therefore should be dogmatized). Clause 45 (I don't know if it is a canon, a section, an article, or what) of the bull declaring the dogma says quite explicitly that if anyone "deny or call into doubt... has fallen away completely..." This isn't saying "try your best to trust us", it's saying it in absolute terms, accept it. My issue, as I put forward, is that this belief has nothing to do with God (and no Catholic has managed to say how it does, other than saying that everything about the Theotokos relates to Christ and therefore this must to).

It's hard to see how her death can be disputed by Roman Catholics considering the words of Pope Pius XII in the very document by which he dogmatically defined the Assumption. Ther Pope says, at least five times, that the Mother of God DIED. Catholics can wriggle out of this and say the Pope has no idea what he is talking about. They will claim that only the very small paragraph where the Pope defines the Assumption is binding on them. As for the rest of the infallible document it is erroneous, the Pope is wrong. I personally find it hard to belioeve that any Catholic could claim that the Spirit protected the Pope from error over one small paragraph and yet allowed him to teach erroneously five times in the same magisterial document!!

It would, btw, be quite impossible for Eastern Catholics not to believe that the Mother of God died without doing an act of violence to their own sacred Tradition. The iconography, the hymnography and the oral Tradition all teach that she did in fact die.

People like to say that the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentissimus Deus" by which Pope Pius XII established the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 makes no mention of whether Mary died or did not die.

This is inaccurate. One only has to read the document to see that the Pope teaches that she died. For example, he says:

"Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."

and

"As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."

and

"They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt.."

and

"she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb.."

and

"What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"

These quotes from the papal document defining the Assumption are proof that the Pope taught that Mary died and was buried in a tomb and from there she was resurrected by her Son.

So there we are.... There is the "magisterial document" we are asking for.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

I am hopeless. So sorry, but the doctrine of the Mother of God is intimately tied to Christ at every moment. I can say more about that later. But the real mistake you make here is thinking that the reason something is dogmatically defined is so as to make it necessary for the faith. That is not true. The definition points to the core truth that must be believed, but the teaching...ALL doctrine...must be given the assent of faith. Does that mean you have to understand it or believe it in such a way that all of your doubts are relieved...NO!!...That is not what it means.

The assent of faith says that you will TRUST that the Church will not teach falsely...and that you are willing to do your best, if it takes a lifetime and beyond, to see how what the Church teaches can possibly be true.

NOBODY...understands the mystery of creation and salvation....NOBODY

And anyone who tells you that they do is full of prelest. You may grasp a small bit of this or that but the great bulk of what the Church teaches as the truths of revelation we MUST take on faith because there's no way our small minds can grasp it all. Even the greatest of saints and fathers and doctors of the Church don't pretend to know it all...quite the contrary.

M.

The theotokos is not tied to Christ at every moment in that one belief of her reflects on Christ. That is a cop out to escape showing how the Assumption is a reflection on Christ rather than just Mary (indeed, by that argument what Mary ate on the 732nd Thursday after Christ was born reflects on Christ and therefore should be dogmatized). Clause 45 (I don't know if it is a canon, a section, an article, or what) of the bull declaring the dogma says quite explicitly that if anyone "deny or call into doubt... has fallen away completely..." This isn't saying "try your best to trust us", it's saying it in absolute terms, accept it. My issue, as I put forward, is that this belief has nothing to do with God (and no Catholic has managed to say how it does, other than saying that everything about the Theotokos relates to Christ and therefore this must to).

You've not read enough in the rich tradition of the Assumption in the west. There is a direct connection between the Assumption of the Mother of God and the Theotokos as the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant. There is also a direct tie to her being bodily elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven.

[Mary is right. I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned. Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.

In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.

You argue like all good dissenting Catholics, trying to rank the truth in some way.

Any teaching that is part of the deposit of faith taught by the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter, is to be granted the assent of faith.

The rest is a matter of the assent of the intellect which is not nearly so important to one's salvation or the truth of one's faith.

And you argue like dissenting Roman Catholics with the pretense that the exercise of papal infallibility is dependent on "the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter." One grows tired of this talk from modern Catholics designed to denigrate the Pope's personal charism of infallibility as the successor of Peter. If we are going to dialogue, please let us do so on the basis of actual Roman Catholic teaching and not the opinions of those misinterpreting it.

[Mary is right. I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned. Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.

In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.

You argue like all good dissenting Catholics, trying to rank the truth in some way.

Any teaching that is part of the deposit of faith taught by the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter, is to be granted the assent of faith.

The rest is a matter of the assent of the intellect which is not nearly so important to one's salvation or the truth of one's faith.

And you argue like dissenting Roman Catholics with the pretense that the exercise of papal infallibility is dependent on "the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter." One grows tired of this talk from modern Catholics designed to denigrate the Pope's personal charism of infallibility as the successor of Peter. If we are going to dialogue, please let us do so on the basis of actual Roman Catholic teaching and not the opinions of those misinterpreting it.

That's clever but it ain't grounds for talkin' turkey...or the truth. Father Hal says you are a slickster...I just says to him that you are Irish.

You've not read enough in the rich tradition of the Assumption in the west. There is a direct connection between the Assumption of the Mother of God and the Theotokos as the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant. There is also a direct tie to her being bodily elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven.

While it's great that it can be used in a metaphor to support the teaching of the Church, I've heard the "Theotokos as the Ark" quite a few times and never was Assumption required to make it work (as a metaphor mind you, she certainly was not the literal Ark carried by the Hebrews into battle). Additionally her being elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven has nothing to do with Christ.

This is a far cry from the use of Theotokos, which if denied is a direct denial of Christ's divinity (if Mary is not the Mother of God, then her child was not God).

[Mary is right. I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned. Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.

In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.

You argue like all good dissenting Catholics, trying to rank the truth in some way.

Any teaching that is part of the deposit of faith taught by the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter, is to be granted the assent of faith.

The rest is a matter of the assent of the intellect which is not nearly so important to one's salvation or the truth of one's faith.

And you argue like dissenting Roman Catholics with the pretense that the exercise of papal infallibility is dependent on "the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter." One grows tired of this talk from modern Catholics designed to denigrate the Pope's personal charism of infallibility as the successor of Peter. If we are going to dialogue, please let us do so on the basis of actual Roman Catholic teaching and not the opinions of those misinterpreting it.

That's clever but it ain't grounds for talkin' turkey...or the truth. Father Hal says you are a slickster...

Takes one to know one. He is currently spamming my fb account with dozens of messages. Does he see it as a joke? Flood me with so many messages that I cannot find the genuine ones? I've told him to check to see if he has been hacked but the stupid messages keep on coming.

You've not read enough in the rich tradition of the Assumption in the west. There is a direct connection between the Assumption of the Mother of God and the Theotokos as the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant. There is also a direct tie to her being bodily elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven.

While it's great that it can be used in a metaphor to support the teaching of the Church, I've heard the "Theotokos as the Ark" quite a few times and never was Assumption required to make it work (as a metaphor mind you, she certainly was not the literal Ark carried by the Hebrews into battle). Additionally her being elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven has nothing to do with Christ.

This is a far cry from the use of Theotokos, which if denied is a direct denial of Christ's divinity (if Mary is not the Mother of God, then her child was not God).

Oddly enough you have what I call a very legalistic or regimented way of looking at salvation history and the Traditions of the Church. To me it is a beautiful mosaic where all the pieces fit together like glittering pieces of Hand made glass to produce a whole image that surpasses all other images.

These teachings and traditions of the Church, many of them, are not necessary in the way in which you seem to be talking about necessary but they certainly are ancient and have been part of our deposit of faith in liturgy and in catechesis.

[Mary is right. I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned. Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.

In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.

You argue like all good dissenting Catholics, trying to rank the truth in some way.

Any teaching that is part of the deposit of faith taught by the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter, is to be granted the assent of faith.

The rest is a matter of the assent of the intellect which is not nearly so important to one's salvation or the truth of one's faith.

And you argue like dissenting Roman Catholics with the pretense that the exercise of papal infallibility is dependent on "the ordinary magisterium in communion with the Successor of Peter." One grows tired of this talk from modern Catholics designed to denigrate the Pope's personal charism of infallibility as the successor of Peter. If we are going to dialogue, please let us do so on the basis of actual Roman Catholic teaching and not the opinions of those misinterpreting it.

That's clever but it ain't grounds for talkin' turkey...or the truth. Father Hal says you are a slickster...

Takes one to know one. He is currently spamming my fb account with dozens of messages. Does he see it as a joke? Flood me with so many messages that I cannot find the genuine ones? I've told him to check to see if he has been hacked but the stupid messages keep on coming.

Can't help you there. My computer is too slow to use Facebook save on rare occasion to connect with one of my children or the other. ps: just sent him a note asking him to see if there's something he can do. It is odd though...He does seem to have problems with a mirror account if I remember correctly. I can access it but he cannot. He had to open a new account, but they seem to be mirror images of one another. I can get to either one. He can get to one. Don't ask.

You've not read enough in the rich tradition of the Assumption in the west. There is a direct connection between the Assumption of the Mother of God and the Theotokos as the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant. There is also a direct tie to her being bodily elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven.

While it's great that it can be used in a metaphor to support the teaching of the Church, I've heard the "Theotokos as the Ark" quite a few times and never was Assumption required to make it work (as a metaphor mind you, she certainly was not the literal Ark carried by the Hebrews into battle). Additionally her being elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven has nothing to do with Christ.

This is a far cry from the use of Theotokos, which if denied is a direct denial of Christ's divinity (if Mary is not the Mother of God, then her child was not God).

Oddly enough you have what I call a very legalistic or regimented way of looking at salvation history and the Traditions of the Church. To me it is a beautiful mosaic where all the pieces fit together like glittering pieces of Hand made glass to produce a whole image that surpasses all other images.

These teachings and traditions of the Church, many of them, are not necessary in the way in which you seem to be talking about necessary but they certainly are ancient and have been part of our deposit of faith in liturgy and in catechesis.

But you are determined so there's not much to do about that.

What I'm reading is that you don't have an answer so you're going to pretend that I'm just set in my way.

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. But don't pretend you're an idiot and try to accuse me of being legalistic when we're talking about Latin Legalism. The subject of this is legislating Tradition into Dogma. You're the one arguing for it. You're the legalist.

But I know from past experience that when you run out of things to say you just sit back and twist words, so I suppose this discussion is over unless some Catholics want to add something of value.

Until then however, I suppose I'm going to have a much harder time disagreeing with Protestants when they accuse the Catholic Church of turning Mary into a goddess.

You've not read enough in the rich tradition of the Assumption in the west. There is a direct connection between the Assumption of the Mother of God and the Theotokos as the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant. There is also a direct tie to her being bodily elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven.

While it's great that it can be used in a metaphor to support the teaching of the Church, I've heard the "Theotokos as the Ark" quite a few times and never was Assumption required to make it work (as a metaphor mind you, she certainly was not the literal Ark carried by the Hebrews into battle). Additionally her being elevated and enthroned as Queen of Heaven has nothing to do with Christ.

This is a far cry from the use of Theotokos, which if denied is a direct denial of Christ's divinity (if Mary is not the Mother of God, then her child was not God).

Oddly enough you have what I call a very legalistic or regimented way of looking at salvation history and the Traditions of the Church. To me it is a beautiful mosaic where all the pieces fit together like glittering pieces of Hand made glass to produce a whole image that surpasses all other images.

These teachings and traditions of the Church, many of them, are not necessary in the way in which you seem to be talking about necessary but they certainly are ancient and have been part of our deposit of faith in liturgy and in catechesis.

But you are determined so there's not much to do about that.

What I'm reading is that you don't have an answer so you're going to pretend that I'm just set in my way.

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. But don't pretend you're an idiot and try to accuse me of being legalistic when we're talking about Latin Legalism. The subject of this is legislating Tradition into Dogma. You're the one arguing for it. You're the legalist.

But I know from past experience that when you run out of things to say you just sit back and twist words, so I suppose this discussion is over unless some Catholics want to add something of value.

Until then however, I suppose I'm going to have a much harder time disagreeing with Protestants when they accuse the Catholic Church of turning Mary into a goddess.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

It is reflective of one of us fully receiving the salvation that Christ offers. Just as she is the prime example of one of us (not God in the flesh and source of life and immortality) devoting ourselves to God in this life, she is the great example of one of us (not God in the flesh and source of life and immortality) fully receiving the gift of eternal life offered in Christ. There is much more theological significance to Mary than simply "He loved His mother very very much", even though He does.

I have yet to find even the most well meaning Orthodox believer, layman, clergy, monk or hierarch who has read the apostolic constitution on the Assumption...but they all say the same thing about it.

I've read it. Aside from being agnostic about whether or not the Theotokos experienced death (due to a widespread Latin belief she did not), I find the condemnation of disagreement at the end to be something contrary to Christian belief. While it carefully avoids using the term "anathema" it essentially damns to hell anyone who doesn't believe in the assumption.

I find that very hard to believe. And even if it is somehow true, it doesn't substantiate your next claim:

This is, in my opinion, a deification of Mary, rather than proper worship of God.

You find what hard to believe? There were a number of statements in that single line. With the exception of "I've read it" all of them are easily verifiable on your part simply by looking at the document. If you have a hard time believing I've read it, then my response is to say I don't like being called a liar, particularly with no further argument to show evidence I'm lying. If you have a hard time believing it says what I've said it says (which context seems to indicate it is) then I urge you to read the text. It is available free online in readable English. I don't have a link but it never took me long to find it in the past.

As to my second statement, I do not believe the text of it substantiates my opinion, my opinion is substantiated by the creation of dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary that does not involve Christ, or for that matter any part of the Trinity. If salvation hinges upon belief in certain things regarding the Theotokos, then she has been made a God herself.

You mean like giving her the title Theotokos?

Except that that title is a reflection on Christ. In fact the entire debate around it was centered on whether Christ was God or not.

If you can tell me of a similar way in which the Assumption reflects on Christ, other than "he loved his mother very very much", I'd be happy to hear it. As it is, even if you can give an example of this, the debate didn't touch on the person of Christ.

Considering that the Dormition is demonstrably one of the oldest feasts of the Church, East and West, and the Assumption...and I'm talking about the actual dogmatic definition of 1854 and not the pious speculation (such as the Theotokos did not die because that is an opinion of some RCs and not one held by that entire ecclesial commununity)...you need to take your objections up with the Orthodox Church, as well.

I'm not sure which objection I have to take up with the Orthodox Church as well. We believe Mary had a bodily death.

As I said, Munificentissimus Deus is rather agnostic regarding her death. A quick look and I see one reference to the ancient celebration of the dormition but that is it.

However as I stated in my original post, the big issue I brought forward was its condemnation of those who don't believe in it.

Rereading your post I see that you're saying I should take the celebration of the feast of the dormition with the Orthodox church. The celebration of a feast is a far cry from the creation of doctrine. I have no issues celebrating feasts to the Theotokos. I have issues announcing that anyone who doesn't believe such and such a thing about her that has nothing to do with Christ is damned.

It really is not agnostic. I will step in to say that much at least. The constitution spends paragraphs talking about the long tradition of the story of her death, and the actual definition talks about her coming to the conclusion of her natural life...which is death for us. So those who say that it is "iffy" are talking through their hats...actually and truly.

M.

Mary is right. I believe that Catholics who see the infallible document "MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS" as riddled with false teaching by Pope Pius XII as concerns the death of the holy Mother of God are simply Catholics who are rather unlearned. Catholics are required to give assent and to submit in mind and will not just to the precisely delineated infallible statements but they MUST give assent to the teachings of the Pope, whether they are infallibly declared or not.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. I find that quite interesting. I know that modern Catholics will "smooth" that out by saying, "But of course, when he is speaking with the mind of the Church he speaks infallibly."

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” ~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.

In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to the papal teaching that the Mother of God DIED.

I just came across this, and thought it interesting on this point:

Quote

DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.

Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone.

Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.

2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm wondering how Card. Newman's development of doctrine got around these:

Quote

Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding

canon 3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm wondering how Card. Newman's development of doctrine got around these:

Quote

Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding

canon 3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

I'm wondering how Card. Newman's development of doctrine got around these:

Quote

Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding

canon 3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

I'm wondering how Card. Newman's development of doctrine got around these:

Quote

Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding

canon 3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

You don't "get around" it. You abide it and you work to understand the MEANING of dogma and insure that it is neither contradicted nor destroyed.

IOW, you pull a Hefele and set about discovering how 2+2 can =5. That is, of course, if you have some integrity. If you don't, you simple deny that 2=2 and insist that the emperor isn't naked, we all just have x-ray vision.

« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 10:07:53 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm wondering how Card. Newman's development of doctrine got around these:

Quote

Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record

14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding

canon 3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

You don't "get around" it. You abide it and you work to understand the MEANING of dogma and insure that it is neither contradicted nor destroyed.

IOW, you pull a Hefele and set about discovering how 2+2 can =5. That is, of course, if you have some integrity. If you don't, you simple deny that 2=2 and insist that the emperor isn't naked, we all just have x-ray vision.

Why? Because Al Misry says so?

The meaning of a text or teaching is up to the magisterium to teach...not you...or me.

I have an obligation to learn and study the teachings, but I don't have the right or the obligation to twist them to suit. You don't have such restrictions. I am not even sure if you have them in Orthodoxy, since there's no common catechism from which to draw a universal guidance.